Cited by

Furthermore, a lawyer’s neglect and failure to communicate with clients reflects negatively on the bar and impedes public confidence in the legal profession, which in turn “harms the public, the profession, and the justice system.”

(stating that “a lawyer’s procrastination, neglect, and failure to communicate with a client .

d 70, 79 (Minn. 2012) (“The impact of the harm to the public and the profession requires consideration of the number of clients harmed and the extent of the clients’ injuries.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Finally, we consider the discipline imposed in similar cases to “ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.” 80 (Minn. 2012).

36 E. Finally, we consider similar cases “to ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.”

E. Finally, we consider similar cases “to ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.”

the referee’s factual findings and conclusions drawn from those facts are conclusive.”

F. Finally, we consider similar cases to “ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.”

When determining the appropriate discipline, we consider similar cases to “ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.”

“The purpose of discipline for professional misconduct is not to punish the attorney but to protect the public and the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys.” I n re Nathanson

See, e.g. , In re Walsh , 50 (Minn. 2015) 16 (6-month suspension) ; In re Nathanson , , 81 (Minn. 2012) (90-day suspension).

To determine the appropriate discipline for the established misconduct, we consider the following four factors: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violation; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” In re Nathanson , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

14 We have regularly imposed sanctions for failing to attend court hearing s. See Adams Powell , d at 646; Greenman, d at 371; In re Nathanson , .

(holding that we consider similar cases to “ensure that [the] disciplinary decision is consiste nt with prior sanctions”).

When determining the appropriate discipline for attorney misconduct, w e “place great weight on the referee’s disciplinary recommendation but retain ultimate 15 responsibility for determining the appropriate sanction.”

E. Finally, we look to similar cases to “ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.”

We look to “similar cases to ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.”

In re Nathanson , , 78 (Minn. 2012).

In re Nathanson , , 78-79 (Minn. 2012).

In re Nathanson , , 78 (Minn. 2012).

See In re Nathanson , , 79 (Minn. 2012) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

8 Finally, we look to similar cases to “ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.”

The referee concluded, “[t]hese are not the actions of an indifferent or mercenary lawyer and weigh heavily in consideration of the appropriate discipline.” Finally, we look to similar cases to “ensure that our disciplinary decision is consistent with prior sanctions.”

(explaining that even if the misconduct does not “jeopardize a client’s legal position, a lawyer’s procrastination, neglect, and 15 failure to communicate with a client ‘are intensely frustrating to the client’ ” (

(stating that the profession is harmed when an attorney causes needless expenditure of judicial and opposing counsel resources); d at 743 (stating that “[m]isappropriation of any kind, by its very nature,” harms both the public at large and the legal profession).